Carl Beck

Hi 280Z: Well that's most likely more than I wrote in 4 years of High School.. Out of a class of 365 students.... I was ranked 363rd. That means that two people did less than me, and still graduated!! I hate coming in third!! Of course a couple years later - I paid the price in college. Took me two years of very hard work - to get past being a Freshman.. Anyway - I've seen some pretty sad dash caps... and I've seen a couple that I had to look very closely at to notice - then only after someone else that was with me brought to my attention. Could be my eyes are just getting old and I don't see as well as I used to. It was a full dash cap and other than looking closely at the gauge openings, I'd have never caught it... The one good thing about the dash caps, if they are installed properly, the pattern/grain is almost a dead match for the original. I believe that there are a couple of manufacturers... could be that one is slightly higher quality than the other... I'm not sure of that however. Maybe someone here has more experience buying/installing them and can suggest a brand name and source. good luck, sound like a nice car to have.. regards, Carl

Hi Mriz: Is the "surface rust" coming through some type of primer you coated the bare metal with long ago? Or did you leave the metal bare to begin with? With bare metal you have two problems, "surface rust"... that you can easily see.. and "flash rust". Flash rust can not be so easily seen, it's in the microscopic pours of the bare metal. What you do with or about both types of rust, to an extent depends on how good a job you want to do - or need to do. "IF" you sprayed a very light coat of primer on the bare metal right after you sanded it or stripped down to it... Or "IF" you left the metal bare... and "AS LONG as it's actually just surface rust.... I'd take a few course Scotch Brite pads, and scrub the area down with Ospho... the slight acid bath will remove any primer and surface rust - while the Ospho will prevent "flash rust" for several days. Just splash on the Ospho and scrub everything down (kind of like wet sanding, instead of water you're using Ospho). After you scrub it down to bare shinny metal, you need to let the Ospho work for at least 12 and better still 24 hours. That will convert any iron oxide (rust) into iron phosphate. Then just before you are ready to apply a good epoxy primer... you can wash the metal down with water (to get rid of any buildup from the Ospho), blow it dry (good and dry).. then spray on the primer. Works for me:-) and in most cases it's the easiest thing to do.. regards, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Guys: I believe that you may be assigning a cause and effect relationship to unrelated factors. Putting Armor-All or anything else on a 25+ year old piece of plastic; which you know very little or nothing about it's lifetime care or lack thereof... doesn't really show any significant cause/effect relationship, when there are so many other unknown, uncontrolled and certainly unrecorded factors involved. Seemingly perfect dashes crack for many reasons... a new owner subjects the dash to different levels of stress, different levels of heat cycles, different levels of shock and vibration -all because the car is being driven and cared for quite differently than it had been. Now that old dash... that had taken a certain "set" from it's prior 20 years of use, simply isn't pliable enough to take a "reset" from a new owner. Many dashes crack because someone put a new radio in, forced fit it and/or didn't put the dash braces back in the same position... now you have that old dash in an ever so slightly different bind. Very small forces that don't crack the dash at once, will over time... A car that has been garage kept by it's last owner... for many years.. is purchased by someone who now drives it every day... lots of heat cycles... expansion/contraction and the dash is cracking... where if the original owner had kept in the garage it would still be "prefect". As someone else mentioned "plastics" (aka vinyls) are destroyed by UV.. UV damage can normally be spotted because it turns the otherwise black plastic - a light gray, and in-turn, the other wise compliant plastic(vinyl) into a brittle surface. Ozone also causes plastics/vinyls to decay (the long polymer chains start to break up as specific elements are broken down by exposure to the ozone). All plastics outgas their plasticizes over time... the very chemical reactions that create them in the first place... destroy them with time -they simply dry out. You can slow down the processes of destruction and/or decay by keeping the vinyl out of direct sun, covering it to protect it from ozone and applying some materials that slow down the out-gasing of the plasticizers. Likewise lowering the number and degree of the heat cycles it's exposed to. The Tar matts on the floor, could last a 1000 years if you kept them covered with a thin layer of paint. The steel in the body would be here a 1000 years if you prevent oxidation.... but the best plastics money can buy.. or for that matter the best synthetic, man made materials might - just might last 100 years. The cheap vinyl used in the dash.... depending on the care it's given.... maybe 50 years. Vinyl is a petroleum based product... many people use Vasoline Petroleum Jelly to coat the vinyl and slow down the outgasing (drying out) process. Silicons are also used for this purpose. If you had a brand new dash (made today) and you keep it coated with Vasoline, stored in a constant temp./constant humidity - and protected completely from UV and Ozone.... you might find it in good shape 80 to 100 years from now. (but I seriously doubt it;-) I bought my Blue 1972 240Z in Dec. of 1971. Nothing other than Armor-All has ever been used on the dash. It is as nearly perfect as you can get.. no cracks. My White 72 240-Z I purchased from it's original owner.. he too had used only Armor-All on the dash and all interior vinyl as well as the tires... no cracks in the dash. Both dashes are still as compliant as they were when new. (as "soft" as you can expect a hard vinyl dash to be). I personally do not believe it is reasonable to jump to the conclusion that just because Armor-All was applied to a 25+ year old dash... it cracked a day, a week or a month later - when there are so many other unknows and variables at work - that you can reasonably assign a cause and effect. Everyone I've known with brown, or red hair that has bought a 280Z within the last eight years.. has cracked dashes now. That Brown or Red hair causes the dashes to crack every time. ;-) My friend Jim in California bought a 77 280Z from it's original owner... it has 51K miles, and has always been garage kept.. it still is... Jim has Gray hair and the dash hasn't cracked. ;-) Just my perspectives after talking at length with the Materials Engineers I used to work with... I'm certainly not a Chemist, nor a Mechanical Engineer, nor a Materials Specialists (but we did have some of the worlds best working there) and I certainly could have failed to understand them fully. I just relate my experience (now 34 years using Armor-All), and their rational. I will agree that today - Armor-All may not be the best product available, as 34 years of research has now been accumulated and plastics today might be quite different than the one's found in our old vinyl covered dashes. However, I have always followed the manufacturers instructions. Clean the dash, apply a thin coat of Armor-All, let stand for a few hours, wipe off excess. Buff with a clean towel. I'll also say that there are many other products that are better for vinyl tops or exterior vinyls. Modern vinyl dressings that don't run, collect dirt etc. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Rogersbw: I'd be a buyer, as long as the uni-body is solid. Front Frames and floorboards original, rust free and straight. e-mail me the pictures, and directions to your house (or where the car is stored), plus phone numbers etc. E-mail: beck@becksystems.com If you want to sell the trailer it's on - let me know about that too. Feel free to call me, I'm a night owl so I don't consider 11:30 PM as being late.. regards, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA beck@becksystems.com 1-727-535-0384

Tom: Does this vibration problem exist Past 4000 RPM -or only around 4000 RPM? I wouldn't just to the conclusion that it's a balance problem, until I was certain that everything else is perfect. You mentioned triple webers... who sat them up and dialed them in? How much dyno time has been spent on the car? Past checking to assure that the crank pully bolt is at the proper torque - and that it isn't slipping around then checking that the flywheel bolts are properly torqued, then checking that the main bearing caps are properly torqued.... I would seriously doubt that anything is so far out of balance that you notice it at 4000RPM. I'd bet it's ignition or fuel related if everything is torqued properly. Hate to see you pull an engine down - until you are certain that's the problem. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA

Hi Kenny: It's sure a beauty now ;-) With the experience you have at this point - you should start on another one. There are still a few out there waiting to be saved;) regards, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Zhorse: I hope you mean "an additional $15K" over and above the $14K Bill spent in 1994. First I believe you would have a very hard time finding a low VIN, mostly rust free, complete and stock Series I 240-Z today for anything less than $4,500.00. In 94 Bill bought the car for $100.00 {even though a tree fell on the car}. As I you mention Bill did his own paint and body work... something most of us wouldn't attempt, so he avoided about $6K in costs we would otherwise incur. He replaced the entire rear tail light/threshold panel.. if you could find one.. that's about $1,500.00 now for parts and labor. There are a lot of other items that Bill did himself, that most of us would farm out, and many items that would have been done on a full restoration project, that Bill did not do. {he didn't rebuild the engine, just refreshed it.. etc}. In 1994 you could buy a new rear bumper.. all three sections, the rubber and the uprights (guards) for about $275.00. Today, if you could locate the parts.. it will add up to over $800.00. Re-chrome a good solid bumper around here ...$220.00 center section, $125.00 each side.. and the guards are $75.00 each.. add the rubber strips (if you can find them all)... and your pushing $700.00. In 1994 a new front bumper was $120.00... today it's closer to $295.00 and I've seen them sold for $325.00. {not counting the uprights and the rubber trim} In 1994 a new set of tail lights from Nissan were about $110.00 a pair and today they are $400.00+. On and on it goes... lots of parts are No Longer Available from Nissan and the one's that are have doubled, tripled or quadrupled in price. The bottom line is the $10K Nissan Parts order Bill put in back in 1994 would cost you about $30K today. The car Bill did was indeed the model for the Franklin Mint.. if you use a magnifying glass you can read the VIN on the Model and compare it to Bill's book. {HLS30 02545}. Another interesting side note - I am given to understand that the person that bought the car from Bill, spend an additional $20K+ putting it in #1 condition. There was a write up in Sport Z Magazine about it.. Oh.. I agree with Chris... if you took a good solid 240-Z to a high end restoration specialist and opened your check book... they most likely wouldn't even start on the car for less than $75K today. If you took it to a smaller shop that specialized in doing first generation Z's ... you might get it done for $50K. In addition to the lower hourly labor and shop rates.. the Z specialists wouldn't spend 10% of the time a regular Restoration Shop would spend tracking down all the needed new parts, the Z Shop would already have sources of supply for almost everything and they would know exactly what to order etc. The quality of the finished product might be a bit lower as well. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Earlier I wrote: >Dyno runs with the air cleaner top and filter removed >show a gain of about 5 to 7 HP. Correction.. oops.... now that I review the dyno sheets... that should be 3 to 4 HP gain with the stock air cleaner top and air cleaner element removed (you have to leave the air cleaner base on because it contains the air horns). See: http://ZHome.com/rnt/Dyno/KThomasHeaders.htm sorry.. Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL http://ZHome.com

Matt wrote earlier: >Well the L28 On a 79 and up 280ZX had Net RWHP of 135 because of all of >the smoge regulations in the US. The 78 and earlyer 280Z brough 149 RWHP >(net). Here is a link http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/gene...41/article.html Hi Matt: First - I'm sorry to say that who ever wrote that article - really didn't know much about the Z Cars. Way too many factual errors there. Second - he reports 135 HP ... not Rear Wheel HP. Matt Wrote.. later... >If anyone has my set up and has had it dyno'd I >would love to see the results. I have an L28 bored 0.020 over, Euro Flat Top Pistons (+2cc's), Nissan Cam Kit, 72 E-88 head with 280Z valves un-shrouded, Uni-lite ignition, triple Webers (40DCOE's with 38 chokes), static and dynamic balance... Admittedly neglected.. not "fine tuned" for years.. but running "OK". I took it to a local club's Dyno Day. There we ran about 15 cars for the day on a Dyno-Jet (Tampa - almost at sea level). Car #1 Pure Stock 77 280Z with 115K miles, well cared for and well tuned.. 119 RWHP (a good baseline for the dyno and day) Car #2 Rebuilt, 76 280Z with every type of bolt-on available.. 121 RWHP This car had larger throttle body, headers, MSD ignition, rising rate fuel regulator, K&N air filter, free flowing exhaust... etc. It had been driven about 3K miles after the rebuild. (shows the difference in quality between a factory engine and rebuild by most other shops) My car ..... 139 RWHP With a fresh tune, I'm sure we could have picked up a few more HP... but nothing drastic. Might have got it up to 145 at the rear wheels. (that's about 175HP at the flywheel if you use 20% driveline loss). At one time I had the dyno run sheets for the above, somewhere on the server - but don't see them there now. I'll keep looking.. If your looking for streetable performance today - and want to stick with the in-line six -the ONLY way to go is with the L28 Turbo.. running 11 lbs of boost or less.. it's pretty easy to get 250 RWHP .... You won't get anything close to that on street gas running under 10.5:1 compression in an naturally aspirated engine. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Guys: Carl S. and I rarely disagree... I have however done quite a bit of research in this subject of HP and HP Rating Systems over the years. I can only tell you what I found.. If you look at all the Nissan publications they quote "SAE HP" of 151 or 150 for the L24's. That is actually different than either "Gross HP" or "SAE Net HP" ratings. "GROSS HP" When manufacturers were playing the gross HP game - anything went. The goal was to see just how much HP an engine could produce on a chassis dyno. I have pictures of the Chrysler Hemi's in the very early 50's with their exhaust manifolds glowing red hot on the dyno.'s. No accessory losses, high octane fuels, engines that literally melted down on the dyno after one high RPM pass at the numbers. There is no "standard" by SAE for "GROSS HP" ratings. "SAE HP" With the advent of Emission Controls mandated around 1965, and the further refinement of the laws around 1968 the SAE set a "draft standard" to at least attempt to standardize HP testing and the measurements of emissions at various levels of engine operation. That is what the "SAE HP" number is. Basically it called for a regular production engine to be pulled off the assembly line at random, taken to the dyno and feed regular pump gas (what ever was recommended by the manufacturer). The engine had to have all normal and average sub-systems to support engine operation - such as oil pump, water pump, fan, alternator in place. "SAE NET HP" With the further refinement of the Federal Testing Standards for emissions, the SAE refined their "draft standard"... and that became the final "SAE NET HP" testing procedure required for use on the 1974 Model Year cars for the US. The "NET" standard included the requirement for air cleaners to be in place as well as the full exhaust system. Additionally all normal and average accessories found in that model car had to be supported by the engine. (The reason for the full exhaust system was because the EPA sat the test measurements for emissions at the end of the tail pipe). For example if you had a Old's Cutlass in 1969 rated at SAE HP - then you had the same model car rated at SAE NET HP in 73, you would have seen a significant drop in rated HP. (in some cases over 40% less) The reason is, that in addition to the losses from lower compression emissions engines coming on line in 72/73 from GM -the "average" Cutlass had A/C, Power Steering, Power Brakes, Larger Alternator capacity all of which added greatly to accessory loss on the "average" regular production engines. With the L24's there isn't much difference between "SAE HP" and "SAE NET HP" because the 240-Z's didn't have any optional accessories that had to be added to the "average" engine. Only the air filter and full exhaust system had to be added. The stock L24 has a pretty efficient stock exhaust manifold to begin with. Indeed adding headers to an otherwise stock engine - produces no measurable HP gain. Dyno runs with the air cleaner top and filter removed show a gain of about 5 to 7 HP. Opening up the stock exhaust system - to a free flowing system - 2.25 or 2.5 inch diameter pipe - picks up an additional 8 to 10 HP. (by the way this is the most HP you can get for the least money on an otherwise good running L24). So as a guess - if you started with 150 SAE HP - took the above gains outlined above away to get to NET HP... you'd get 133 to 137 SAE NET HP ratings.. Inversely - if Nissan had rated the L24 in a "GROSS HP" manor al la 1950's - with an OHC in-line six cylinder engine of 149 cubic inches, high octane fuel to support timing advance and a 9:1 compression ratio ...IMHO a GROSS rating of something closer to 165HP would have been easy to obtain and reported. Nissan did not use "GROSS HP" in their reporting.. they used "SAE HP" and they specified that honestly at the time. From 1974 forward, Nissan like everyone else had to use SAE NET HP procedures. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hello Steve: You know - there is another "possibility" here. The guy that stamped the engine number on that block - could have simply had the die set up wrong... or could simply have put an extra "0" to the right side of the "6" As for poor #390... I'm afraid it's too far past any economically reasonable consideration for restoration. The rust damage is simply too extensive, better to save another 69 production dated car that has a more rust free body to begin with. So far - of the first 500 240-Z's produced - we have found 125 of them "still in existence". Of those 125 maybe 40 are in pretty good condition and 85 simply "still exist" needing complete restorations... If he parts out 390 and sends it to the crusher... the number will go down to 124.. FYI - "SEM" (is a Brand Name)... and they produce "Vinyl Paints/Coatings" and "Trim Paints" ("trim" is for applications to metals).. their "NAPA RED" is a dead match for the red interior of the 240-Z's. I've used their products for the last 30 years.. you can dye the seats, it won't rub off (if you follow their directions). Most Automotive Paint and Auto Body Shop Supply Companies carry it. regards, Carl

Gav wrote: >As you can tell I'm still learning I have found the How to modify >your Nissan & Datsun OHC Engine to be a good book so far would >you say that is more error free than the Z garage site? > >The Z garage site is quite good despite it's errors as you point out. Hi Gav: (everyone) I didn't mean to devalue the entire "Z Garage" site - just felt obligated to point out that the information published there, on heads, is in many ways technically incorrect. Brian's site has a lot of individual work put into it and it provides a lot of useful/helpful data and information for many people. We back up his site just so the data/info won't be lost. We have always commended Brian for his individual efforts and he has contributed any information we requested, to be republished on the Z Car Home. None-the-less you have to take everything with a grain of salt, it's not gospel, just his personal experiences. The "How To Modify Your NISSAN/DATSUN OHC Engine", Nissan Part Number 99996-M8012 was published in 1986. So it's now 18 year old information. Much of the information in that book is republished, and some of it is updated from, the "how to modify DATSUN 510 610 240Z engines and chassis" DATSUN Part Number 99996-M8010 first published in 1973. Now 31 years old. Both books provide a lot of good basic information and many of the basics don't change much over time. However by todays standards, with 20 plus years of advancements and racing history behind us - I wouldn't put too much weight on the information in either historic source. In terms of "real" or "constant" dollars - there has been huge advancements in the past 20 years as to how the average person can gain more torque and horsepower for their L series Z's. The actual costs of Turbo Charging, or of installing a belt driven Supercharger have come down to a fraction of the costs 20 years ago. The availability of very affordable aftermarket Digital Engine Management Systems opens up entire performance pathways not really covered in either of those old books. There is a huge difference between the pathways taken to building a "street" performance L series engine today - and the one taken to building an L series engines to comply with some set of regulations, established by some competition sanctioning body, for some specific class of racing. Both the "how to modify" book have lots of good basic engine prep info and they certainly are good to have as basic info... but a lot has changed in the performance market over the last 20 to 30 years. Right now, there is no verified, 100% accurate source of information about how to modify the L series engines using todays technology. Mostly a huge volume of information on the Web - about what others have done. We all simply have to wade through it and take our best guess as to what to follow.. Of course public discussion helps shake things out too. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Gav240Z wrote: >Tricky question >L24 had 2 heads on a 240z anyway a E31 E88 >L26 to my knowledge only had the later E88 >The early Z's had the L24 E31 combo high compression. Hi Gav (everyone) The L24 E31 combo was used on the 1970 Series I and 1971 Series II 240-Z's. Brian's site says only on the 70's... and that is incorrect. >The 72 Z had the first gen E88 same as E31 High Compression >Bigger exhaust valve. No - The 72 E88 was a bit lower compression and had the same valve size as the E31. The 72 E88 had better flow.. so HP ratings stayed the same even with lower compression between 71 and 72 Model Years. >The L26 E88 combo was a lower compression version of the 72 Z head. It was lower compression, had a larger exhaust valve and completely different shape to the combustion chamber... it was a smog head.. >So really it didn't flow any better than a later Z head and the loss in >compression probably meant it wasn't as good but in terms of flow >yes better make sense? The E88 on the 260Z isn't a good performance head because of the combustion chamber design. Even though it had a larger exhaust valve.. I wouldn't assume it flowed any better than the 72 E88. >If you wanna confuse the situation further take into account other cars with >L24 and L26 engines... eg: skyline. > >The main point is any L series head can flow well with the right work done >the P90 being the best to begin with and the N42 close second. Generally true - if you spend enough money any head can be made to flow better than it did. However among L series heads, some simply have better design intake and exhaust port runners cast into the head to begin with. The racing shops that have flow benches seem to prefer the 72 E88, the N42 and the P90.. as starting points. >The P79 had round ports less desirable. > >http://www.geocities.com/zgarage2001/ >under cylinder heads. Way to many incorrect statements there related to heads. See: http://ZHome.com Look in the Section titled Z Car Technical Library, then under "Heads". FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Deadflo wrote: >For what its worth. >My car is one of the last series ones, HLS30-20390, Its door jamb >plate shows a build date of 1-71. Hi Steve: Yes - the last one verified so far is HLS30 020438 ( I think).. with engine number L24-26808. >So it really was built in 71 although it is a series one. Yes - the Series I's were built along with the Beginning of the Series II Z's in Jan. of 71. >It has a matching number engine L24 O27310. >The matching engine is a P-30 block. >I wonder if its one of the first S30's with a P-30 block? Could very well be - could be that in order to keep up with the demand for Z's Nissan had to increase engine production, and thus simply added another "block casting station" and used P-30 to differentiate it from the E-31 block casting station. (Casting Numbers were mostly used for Quality Control tracking) Nissan increased production of the 240-Z from about 18,000 the first year to about 32,000 the second year! So they had to increase the production volume of the engine line as well. >Also regarding Brian Littles webpage his timeline shows the E-88 head >starting in 71, and the copy says the e-31 head was on "early 70" cars. This is an example of the small "errors" on the site. The E31 Head was used on the Series 1 and Series II 240-Z's (1970 & 1971 Model Years, produced between Oct. 69 and Sept. 71). Brian's site say's that 10,000 cars were made with the E31... Wrong.. More like 46,000 Z Cars were produced and sold with the E31 head (plus about 10,000 other Nissan's with the L24 engine). The E88 head was introduced on the 1972 Model Year, Series III Z Cars. Although there is some evidence that some heads cast as E88's actually have the combustion chambers cut to E31 Spec.'s with 42.4cc combustion chamber size, instead of the E88 Spec. 44.7cc. The E88's Production Date starting 09/71. Series II cars were still being produced in 9/71 so during this over-lap period, some 1971 Model Year Series II cars actually got the E88 casting on their heads, but the combustion chambers were still cut to the E31 spec.'s. Likewise some of these heads found their way on the first Series III cars. (as far as we can tell). It's a rare occurrence.. but it has been found. >My car has an e-88 head but again its a series one car. >I cant verify the head is original but there was some paperwork >with the car about a head rebuild in the late 70's and not a lot of >miles on the car since then. Again i cant confirm it is the original >head though....but I see confilcting info around about when the >e-88 actually was first used. Whats the scoop? On a Series I car you can be sure the head's been swapped So far Brian's site is the only one I've found that claims only 10,000 E31 and only on the "early Z's". Where else are you finding "conflicts"? Brian says that there were two types of E88's - small valve and large valve. In fact there were three heads with casting number E88. The 72 Model Year, the 73 Model Year and the 74 Model Year. The 72 & 73 had the same valves, the 72 had 44.7cc volume combustion chambers, the 73 has 47.8cc's. The E88 on the 74 260Z has 47.8cc but with a larger 35 vs 33 exhaust valve. Brian says - that the 74 260 E88 has the same size combustion chambers as the N42/N47.. wrong. The N42/N47's have smaller size combustion chambers..at 44.6cc. If you want accurate head information - I'd suggest you get it from the Z Car Home Page. http://ZHome.com Just look in the Technical Library Section. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

2-4-T-Z-MAN replied: >Datsunzgarage.com has an article that talks about how to identify engine > and head series. Hi Z Man.. Datsunzgargae.com - doesn't come up on my Browser... I have the URL for Brian's site as: http://geocities.com/zgarage2001/ Is there now a different one? >Brian Little states that 1970 240's have L24s with the E31 block and that >71-73 Z's have L24 with the P30 block. Yes, as I said - that has been generally true in my experience also if we are talking about the "Production Year" of the part, and not the Model Year of the Car. That is why having an E31 block show up in a car that would have been produced 10/71 is interesting... if not odd. The truth is, I don't know of any broad effort to link casting numbers to engine serial numbers or published start/stop dates from Nissan. In Brian's as well as my case, it's just a general observation based on limited personal experience. In the case of Engine Serial Numbers matched to VIN's and Production dates - I've been actively gathering that data, on hundreds of cars for the past 15 years. So I believe we have a pretty good statistical sample with high confidence levels. >So this 60039 engine leans to the thought that the above statement >is too broad? It would lean toward the statement not being true in absolute terms. Brian has put a lot of work into his web site and "in general" it answers a lot of common questions that people have about their Z's. However I must admit that I find many statements to be misguided if not factual errors - through-out the site - most are small and some would say insignificant in the overall scheme of things... but they Pop out at me.. I keep meaning to write Brian about several of them -but then, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the Z Car Home Page.... We all have to be careful to verify sources of information on the Net... much of it is simply stated in a confusing or misleading way, some of it is just simply opinion presented as fact.. and some of it is simply incorrect to begin with.. everything taken with a grain of salt.. FWIW, Carl

2-4-T-Z Man replied: >Carl, >Thanks for some very detailed information. I wondered when you >would see this topic and jump in. > >I have to say that by no means am I an authority on the Z. >Every day is a learning experience. Hi Z Man (everyone): Every day is a learning experience for all of us. >Your answer that this car , based on the 60039 #, indicates that it was built 10/71 making >it a 71 confuses me. Your sentence confuses me. ;-) I said: "So L24-060039 is the 60,039th engine produced. It would have been installed in a 240-Z built in Oct. 1971 (10/71)." I went on to say that the 1972 Model Year Z's started production 09/71, during the month of 09/71 there were both 1971 and 1972 Model Year Z's produced ... At any rate being a 10/71 build date - that engine serial number would have been installed in a 1972 Model Year Z build 10/71. >I'm not disputing your information, it just seems that there is more information out there >than can be assimilated and come up with a simple method of determining a vehicles >model year, other than the title. No mention was made of using the title..(that's another story all together). We are only talking about either "Production Year" (meaning the Calendar Year) or "Model Year". Here in the US "Model Years" of cars do not run concurrent with "Calendar Years". Normally "new Models" are introduced several months ahead of the end of the Calendar Year. Actually it is quite simple to determine the Production Date. a) There was only one L24 engine production line. The engines were numbered sequentially within the series used... The production of L24's was limited to the production capacity of that single line - only so many engines could have been made each month. c) All North American Z's have their Month and Year of Manufacture attached to them. d) All 240-Z's have Data Tags that tell what the Original Engine Serial Number installed in that car is. From this we know it's not possible to build a complete car "before" the original engine installed in it at the factory - has been produced. By gathering a large statistical sample - patterns of engine serial numbers can be associated with specific build dates from the cars they were installed in. So you wind up with narrow ranges of Chassis Numbers lining up with narrow ranges of Engine Serial Numbers. Within these narrow ranges, engine numbers do not match in perfect sequence with the chassis numbers.. but they all do fall with narrow ranges of each other. We know that the engine's did not get installed in perfect sequence with the Chassis Numbers of the cars - none the less - within a month or two - and within blocks of engine serial numbers - the progression of the engine serial numbers do match the progression of the chassis numbers. When we compare the above observations with the information the Factory Service Bulletins and the Factory Parts Catalogs provide - we see that they support one another. >It was my understanding that the E-31 block made it a 1970's car and if it had a P-30 the >car would be a 71-73 depending on build date. Here you have to specify - are you talking about "Production Year" or "Model Year" cars? Cars built during Production Year 1970 were sold/titled as both 1970 and 1971 Model Year cars. Cars built during Production year 1971 were sold/title as both 1971 and 1972 Model Year Cars... etc etc. So to be clear in your meaning, you have to be specific in your terms. If it is your understanding that all L24 blocks cast in Production Year 1970 had casting number E31 cast into them... then they might be found in both Series I and very early Series II cars - with Model Years 1970 and 1971. Because a block cast in the last week of 12/70 could easily have found it's way into a car built in the first few weeks of 01/71 or even 02/71. Then my question is, upon what information is that understanding based? I will agree that in general and broad terms - it is most common to see the E31 castings in series I cars.. >Now the 60036# issue places a car with a E-31 block as a 1971. The 60039 # places a car with an E31 block in a car that would have been "Produced", along with several thousand others.. in 10/71. It most likely would have been a 1972 Model Year Z Car. I agree that in general those two pieces of data don't line up correctly. So far we have engine serial numbers between 57741 and 64101 installed in Chassis Numbers HLS30 46675 and HLS30 49806 all with 10/71 Dates of Manufacture. (remember that not all L24's went into Z's... large blocks of them went to other production models). #60039 puts that engine almost right in the middle of that group. Is it "possible" that #60039 got pushed to the side, left behind at the engine factory and somehow got out of order, somehow delayed and put in car built 11/71, 12/71 etc... Yes it's possible. Would it be possible to install that engine number 60039 in a car made 10 months earlier.. say in 12/70?... when all the engine serial numbers from those dates were between 15xxx and 17827?.... knowing that the numbers were assigned sequentially in the series?... NO NOT Possible. >Which lonetreesteve's title states. Lonetreesteve has no title for the engine he's asking about. I get the impression from Lonetreesteve's writing - that he has an extra engine -- not installed in a car at all. It was just a spare engine - which the seller was told it was from a 1970 Z. >Whats up? If he checks the plate on the shock tower and finds that the numbers match, >would that eliminate the prospect that someone put an earlier engine in his car? He has no Shock Tower Data Plate for that engine. If he checks the Shock Tower Data Plate for the 71 or 72 Z that he has - then he can verify that either one of them still has its original engine or not. If he tells us - only the engine serial numbers, from the Data Plates of his Z's - I'll tell him what the Date Of Manufacture is on the Data Plates on the Drivers Door Jam's of his cars. Or if he tell us only the Build Dates of his Z's - I'll tell him the range of engine serial numbers that were installed in his cars. If he tells us both the Date of Manufacture and the Original Engine Serial Number of his Z's - taken off the Data Tags...I'll add that data to our data base.. ;-) >I have since gone to an article you wrote for the Internet Z car Club back in may 2001. >In that article you made mention of two cars, one having a later build date than the >second. The car with the later build date was titled as a 70 model while the one with the >earlier build date was titled as a 71. That is correct. Within the Series I 240-Z's... there is a huge overlap in how they were sold and titled. There is no question related to when each car was built, nor what the original engine serial number was. That is because it was up to the Selling Dealer to decide how to apply for a State Title for the car they sold. Nissan does NOT issue Titles, Nissan provides a Manufacturers Statement of Origin (MSO) to the Dealers. The Dealers then take the MOS to their local Dept. of Motor Vehicles and apply for a State Title to be issued. The individual States issue Titles. The reason the Series I cars could be sold as either 1970 Model Year or 1971 Model Year Z's - was because there were no changes in the US Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (MVSS) nor Emissions Standards for cars produced before 03/71. So if the Dealer declared a Series I Z to be a 1971 Model Year Car.. it was perfectly legal to both sell it and title it that way. >So do we just go by the title information as to what year vehicle we have? Your State Issued Title -- only shows what "Model Year" the car was sold as. As we know, both Series I and Series II 240-Z's were sold as 1971 Model Year Z's and are titled that way. Because for 1972 and 1973 Model Years - there were different MVSS and Emissions Standards - they had to be sold and titled as the Model Years that meet the US regulations and so it was no longer up to the dealers to decide. >Is this entire topic just semantics? There just seems to be so much conflicting information. Specific terms are very important to watch - both in writing and reading about these cars... yes a lot of the confusion is caused by not using specific terms and semantics. The specific case here - of having a block with an E31 casting number and an Engine Serial Number that would indicate a build date of 10/71 -is very unusual indeed. Is it possible that an older E31 cast block get pushed off in a corner somewhere, only to be put back on the engine line 10 or more months later and then finished? I guess it's possible. Is it possible someone re-stamped/altered the engine serial number?... I guess that's possible too...Is it possible lonetreesteve needs to take a pencil and piece of paper with him to write these numbers down.. as he triple checks... it's a good idea ;-) FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Andrew (Everyone): As this thread had comments related to information in addition to the original question.. I'll tell you what I know, and belive to be true, at this point. Nissan only had one production line for the L24 engines. So there is only one series of numbers stamped into them. The engine "serial" number indicates the order the complete long block came off the engine assembly line in series. So L24-060039 is the 60,039th engine produced. It would have been installed in a 240-Z built in Oct. 1971 (10/71). The 1972 Model Year 240-Z's started production 09/71 at Chassis Serial Number 46000. (however there were a few Series II 1971 Model Year Z's produced during this change over period also). As someone mentioned - the L24 was used in more than one Nissan Model in addition to the DATSUN 240-Z. So there are gaps in the series numbers of engines used in the Left Hand Drive 240-Z's. Some engines went into the Right Hand Drive HS30 series models after Jan. 1970 (as well as other Nissan Models). So while the HLS30 and HS30 cars had a different set of Chassis Serial Numbers - the L24 had only one set. Engines moved from the engine assembly line - usually in what would seem to be lots of 200 or more at a time, to the Z assembly line. Nissan "Shanti" (a guess at the spelling of that, without looking it up) - was actually a sub-contractor to Nissan Motors. They built production models such as the 1600/2000 roadsters, in limited quantities, for Nissan Motors Ltd in Japan. In Oct. of 1969 the Z Car production was started there (Shanti), on the same assembly line as the 2000 Roadster.. To Date, the lowest engine serial number, installed in a 240-Z that we have located and verified is L24-2079 and it was installed in HLS30 00042 in Oct. 69. (still ran fine the last time I started it up - sold #42 to a friend of mine last year). A specific engine, is specific to a specific 240-Z. Because each 240-Z had a Data Plate screwed to the right hand shock tower, under the hood. That Data Plate Lists the VIN of the car and the original engine serial number (thus tieing the two together and referred to as "matching numbers" if the Data Tag matches the Engine serial number stamped in the block). All 240-Z's coming to the North American Market (and that was about 98% of them) had an additional Data Tag on the Drivers Door Jam, that lists the Date of Manufacture of the car and the VIN number. This tag was required by US Regulations to be attached to all Vehicles sold in America upon completion; so that US Motor Vehicle Safety (MVSS) and Emissions Standards could be enforced - as they are both enacted into law by "Date Of Manufacture". The Right Hand Drive 240-Z's did not get the Date of Manufacture stamped on the cars. However it is possible to determine (within a month or two at least) their actual production dates, based on cross-referencing their engine numbers, with the dates of Manufacture of the Left Hand Drive 240-Z's and their engine serial numbers. >2-4-T-Z Man wrote: >IF IT IS AN E-31 YOU HAVE A 1970. >IF IT IS AN P-30 YOU HAVE A 1971-1973. Does "A 1970" mean that the item was "produced" during calendar year 1970; or does that mean Model Year 1970? Model Year 1970 240-Z's were produced from Oct. 1969 into Jan. 1971. In general I find that the early L24 blocks do indeed carry a P31 casting. But so far I have not found a specific date at which the casting numbers change - consistently. The Casting Numbers - on most parts were used for Quality Control purposes within the casting process itself. They simply help identify raw castings as well as which casting lines and/or stations any specific raw casting came off of - so if the quality of the cast parts varies - corrections can be made. Raw castings are usually processed through machining steps before they actually become a useful "Part" at a specific point in time. So any one casting could have been farther machined, to produce several different specific part numbers. 2-4-T-Z Man, I would be very interested to see any documentation from Nissan that ties a casting number to a date of manufacture or an absolute change over date. While we may be able to use casting numbers as a "general reference points" or "rules of thumb".. I wouldn't depend on them to indicate anything other than that which Nissan used them for. I will readily admit that in many cases it would "seem" that casting numbers changed, on certain castings, past certain points in time.. In this case however the best evidence of the date of production of this engine, is the Engine Serial Number. (of course re-stamping engine serial numbers is something that has been done on many Chevy's over the years;-) Nissan used Engine Serial Numbers for two purposes. All Technical Service Bulletins reference the engine serial number because that pins down the specific engine at which any manufacturing changes were made, or when any manufacturing defects entered the process; and for warranty purposes it ties a specific engine to a specific VIN. It would seem that if engine serial number 60039 has a P--31 block casting.. they must have found an old block laying around - or someone else has restamped the serial number.. Yet another Z Car oddity... and we may have to just accept that this might be one of them.. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hello Wishihada240Z: Let's put it this way. If you are going to buy a 240-Z today - you buy the best one you can find - and you pay the extra money right up front. Do not buy a car thinking that you will only need to put a few thousand more dollars into it. For Example (the car listed below is sold of course) - Had you put just $2,500.00 with that $5K your thinking of.. you could have bought this 240-Z. One Owner, NO RUST.. low mileage - -all original (never wrecked,never repainted etc). http://ZHome.com/Adelle/CalZGreen.htm Car's like this are getting very hard to find.. but they can be found. Do you only want a 70 or would a very nice 71 do just as well? FWIW, Carl

Chris wrote: > > I can't tell you how surprised I was to find the mention in the owner's > manual. We had almost come to the conclusion that the hand throttle was > excluded from the American >market with the exception of a few cars that > "snuck" in. Evidently not so. Hi Chris: Your first conclusion is correct. The Owners Manuals were supposed to be manually "edited" to delete the references to the "hand throttle". Maybe one day a copy of the Datsun Service Bulletin informing the Dealers of this - will show up on ebay. ( like the one telling the Dealers to install the rear window defroster if it wasn't installed at the factory). The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (MVSS) were in great flux between 1965 and 1970. You may recall that was when seat belts became "required"(65), head restraints became required (68 or 69) emissions controls were being introduced on all cars(66) and even the wheels had to be be certified for radial tire use - etc etc. Nissan assigned it's East Coast V.P. (after Mr. K was appointed President of Nissan North American) to head up the study and tracking of the MVSS in Washington D.C. during that period, to report developments to the home offices and then, when the cars were released for production - he got the models through the certification tests necessary to sell them here.Wavers were common for a year or even two - on many of the MVSS items for many manufactures, if they had a good case to plead - so they don't seem to be standard at first blush. (See: "Nissan/Datsun, a history of Nissan Motor Corporation in USA 1960-1980" by: John Bell Ray) The "hand throttle" was effectively one of the items banned by the MVSS, when Cruise Controls were becoming ever more popular...the specific requirement was that the throttle had to be released when either the brake or accelerator was touched. So all Z's imported into the US had to either not have them included in the first place - or had to have them removed prior to clearing US Customs. Nissan would have been subject to heavy fines for not complying with any of the MVSS standards on cars sold to the public, and indeed if caught at the Port of Entry the car would not have been released. No inspection program was 100% at the Port of course -and few cars did get though to the Dealers with the hand throttle in place. The dealers were instructed to remove them prior to sale (many early cars came though without rear window defrosters.. and the dealers were instructed to install them prior to sale). Today it's all but impossible to tell which, or how many, were added by previous owners over the years. I do know that in 1970's several of the Z owners I knew added them, by buying the necessary parts over the local parts counters (in Washington State it was a wonderful way to warming the car up in the winter - without running the engine so rich it fouled the plugs - using the hand choke). Given that in the early months of production - only a few thousand cars were produced, only a few thousand Owners Manuals had to be "edited" by hand.. until the newer printings were available. We should try to pin down the earliest date of printing on the Owners Manuals - that had the hand throttle - not included.... ie not shown, nor edited out.. but rather showing only the choke in the pictures and lists. FWIW Carl

Gav240-Z wrote: >Unsure what your talking about with the SU's running a turbo aswell >as engine management? >can you explain this again for me? Mperdue is correct... I'm saying that if you are going to rebuild (rings/bearings/seals/water pumps/engine gasket kits/ etc) any "L" series engine - and you you have an option at this point - then it makes the most sense to spend the money on the engine that offers you the most future options for additional HP. I'd rebuild an L28-ET retaining the turbo pistons, turbo oil pump, turbo head bolts etc - but then either install that short block with an N42 head (with a fresh valve job) for a boost in compression - and run the 70-72 SU's and stock exhaust manifold... Very streetable, strong engine... with more torque/HP than the original L24. Then I'd set the P90 head, FI intake, Turbo and Turbo Exhaust manifold aside, along with the turbo engine management system, wiring harness etc - for future use - if desired - or when funding became available. Once I had everything ready - I'd take a weekend and do the upgrade.. If I could afford it right up front - I'd swap in the complete L28-ET right from the beginning. There are some re-wiring issues to address but it's been done lots of times by lots of people. If I could find a good running 82/83 280ZX Turbo - with rusted body or damaged body as a parts car - I wouldn't bother with a rebuild at all. Maybe just do a fresh valve job and run it that way. Swap in the L28-ET, the 3.9 R200 and use the B/W 5spd. if it was good.. The L24 is a sweet little engine for sure - but if you don't have the original matching number block - might as well go for more torque/hp while your at it.. or at least plan for that... FWIW, Carl

Hi Gary: I have both. A pretty stock 72 with the original L24 (now at 71K miles) Another 72 with L28, triple webers, cam etc etc etc.. Driving the two is worlds different. I'm sure it's a personal thing, but I just can't drive the 72 with the L28 without wanting to go ever and ever faster.. Driving the stock 72 is actual more "pleasurable" both around town and on longer highway trips. Driving the 72 with the L28 is more "exciting" ;-) As Gary said... it all depends on how much money you want to spend... no strike that, now much money "you are willing" to spend. Faced with the decision you outline - today, I would buy and install a rebuilt L28 Turbo engine. At first I'd keep it an all stock turbo... then if I wanted more HP... I'd go to some minor aftermarket mod.'s On a more limited up-front budget -- I'd put a rebuilt L28 turbo engine in, then run the SU's... holding the Engine management system, Turbo Intake, Turbo etc for later, If I wanted more power... With an OEM rebuild on an L28 ET -- you would seem to have a lot more options in the future and a very nice engine to begin with... The lower compression of the turbo engine would allow you to run regular gas for daily commutes... So you might not have the initial power of the higher compression Non-turbo engine.... but you'd still be ahead of the original L24 and with a bright future.. I figure if you are going to spend $2K on an ATK.. might as well spend a few dollars more and have a good stock rebuild done on an L28-ET. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Alan: That's it... you are right. Dean Moon . It was the Chevy Engine in the R-381 as you correctly pointed out. Funny, Nissan puts Chevy engines in their race cars and GM put's RB's in their sedans.. go figure. regards, Carl

Hi Alan: Thanks for the addition.... agreed that engine development within Prince and then within Prince/Nissan was an evolutionary process. Off-hand, I would have thought that the later RB's with variable valve timing and digital engine management systems would have been more complex. While we are on the subject .. do you recall who Nissan bought the engines from, for the R380-I? It seems that the engine for the 380-II wasn't out of development in time. I belive that the R380-1, was the engine they won the JGP with. I recall reading the story somewhere, but can't lay my hands on it right now. AIR it was one of the famous racing shops in California.. regards, Carl

Hi Guys Not so much a "correction" as simply some additional info. The origins of the "RB" Series engines, would seem to be rooted in the Prince Motors Ltd. R380 Racing Engine of 1966, and the following Nissan R380-II of 1967. (Prince Motors was merged into Nissan in Aug. of 1966). Both the "L" series and "S" then the following RB series would seem to have been in development at the same time. I think it is safe to say that Nissan MotorSports continued the advancement of the RB series well past the end of the production life of the "L" series. The first production engine, based on the Racing engine was the Nissan S20 engine it was used in the 1969 Fairlady Z 432 & Skyline GT-R. It sported a duel overhead cam, alum. cross flow head with hemispherical combustion chambers and 4 valves per cylinder. So it would seem that the Racing Engine of 1965/66, lead to the Production engine (S20), which in turn lead to the RB Series of Performance/Production Engines. The RB20 DET started production in 84 and was installed in the 85 Skyline and the Fairlady ZR-1 and ZR-II (that's correct an in-line six in the 85 Fairlady in Japan). The RB series engines as someone said earlier, are significantly stronger than the "L" series. Blocks are cast with additional webbing, thicker main bearing supports and are a higher nickle content cast iron. Crank and rods are also stronger.. As for "costs"... depends on where you are, but the cost of manufacturing the RB engines was about twice that of the "L" series according to the head of Nissan Motorsports ( I meet him at the National Z Car Convention in San Antonio). Sadly the factory that produced the RB series engines was one of the first to fall under the cost cutting axe of Carlos.. and thus ended one of the worlds best in-line sixes... Just as several manufacturers were returning to them.. (GM's new 4.2L for example). FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

>>Steve ask: >>Just out of interest, why wouldnt you recommend webers for a 240Z ? >threefittyzee replied: >Why exactly wouldn't you recommend the Webers? >I need to know this, please. Thanks. Hi Steve (everyone): 2ManyZ's was pretty close. I assumed from the prices quoted and the alternatives considered, that we were talking about the two downdraft Weber set up. I would not recommend it because, being down draft carb.'s - the fuel/air has to make a 90 degree turn directly below the carb.'s.. this allows too much raw fuel to pool up in the manifold and makes them very hard to tune properly at all RPM ranges. At twice the price of the SU's you would be getting a car that wouldn't run any better and in most cases I've seen it would run worse. It is possible to get the twin downdraft Webers set-up and running within reason, but it's rare that anyone is able to do it. Secondly I would not recommend them because you would be spending additional money to reduce the resale value of your 240-Z. Buyers shy away from 240-Z's that aren't, or haven't been, maintained in their stock configurations - they don't want to buy "the unknown", or have to mess with putting it back to stock - unless the price of the car is lowered to justify the risk they think they are taking. So it not only lowers the value of your Z it makes it harder to resell. Everyone says they don't care about the resale value of their Z - UNTILL THEY GO TO SELL IT!! As for the triple Webers: My Blue 72 has an L28 with Triple Webers (40DOCE's) on the Cannon manifold - E88 Head, Factory Cam Kit, +1mm Euro Pistons, 5spd and 4.11:1 Torsen/Gleason posi.. Hard To Tune is an understatement! I bought the Triple Webers around 1974 as I recall - and by 1978 or 79 I finally found a mechanic that could set them up correctly and get the car running the way I thought it should. This was after about five other "Weber Experts" dinked with them, and in most cases made things worse. It always took at least three or four trips back, as we had to order, then reorder different jets, air correction jets, emulsion tubes and accel pump jets... It really all boiled down to a lot of trial and error on my dime.. Most people simply didn't "really" know what they were doing, most didn't have the extensive experience they needed and in-turn I was paying them to learn on my car.. I finally found a guy racing Z's at Daytona, running Webers... and Weber was one of his sponsors.. He had a parts cabinet, supplied by Weber with at least 20 of EVERY PART for any DCOE ever made. He had attended all of Webers Training classes and had been racing them for five years on 240-Z's.. this was all a hobby for him. As his profession he was an Architect. He sat my carb.'s up in one morning, the car ran perfectly at all RPM ranges - and no one has touched them since... In the mean time I transfered them from my original L-24 to my new L-28 and had to change NOTHING.. they simply ran better on the L-28. Today - given the costs and hassles, and given the experiences of many - I wouldn't recommend the Triple Webers for anything other than "Looks"... they simply look neat and at times they sound pretty good too. From a performance standpoint - the Webers would be of benefit "maybe" on very high speed road courses, or on highly modified racing engines. On an engine you would run on the street, even a pretty highly modified street engine - the SU's will provide performance equal to the Webers with far less trouble. Another Original Owner in Tampa is running a Rebello prepared L28.. he also tried the Webers..and just couldn't get the performance he felt the car should have... Rebello sent him a set of bored SU's.... the car runs GREAT now.. Today - I'd go to Fuel Injection with a good engine management system -if I didn't run the SU's - long before I'd even dink with the triple Webers... That way, if later you wanted to add a Turbo your investment in both time and money -wouldn't be wasted. FWIW, just my experience... Carl